Saturday, October 6, 2012

For Want Of A Pitcher: Here We Go Again.

(While I plan to
discuss Kevin Seitzer in greater detail later, I want to focus on the rotation
right now. So my reaction in brief: am I sad that Seitzer was fired? Yes. Do I
think he was scapegoated? Of course. Do I think firing him was a mistake?
…that, I’m not so sure about.)

I’m sitting down on a Saturday afternoon, trying to take
advantage of some rare free time to begin my analysis of the Royals’ rotation
options for next year…and Bob Dutton drops a column on us that contains much
food for thought. I’ll get to Dutton’s column later, I promise, but let me first
share my thoughts with you as they were on the day the season ended.

Before the Royals figure out who they should bring into the
rotation mix from outside the organization, they first need to get a firm
handle on what options from within
the organization should be part of the rotation for 2013.

The Royals only have one starting pitcher under a guaranteed
contract for next season. That’s Bruce Chen, who is guaranteed $4.5 million.
Chen had a disappointing season and that contract looks like a mistake at this
point, but he wasn’t the complete disaster that, say, Luke Hochevar was. Chen
finished with a 5.07 ERA, but that understates his performance nearly as much
as his 3.96 ERA between 2010 and 2011 overstated his performance. Chen had a
strikeout-to-walk ratio of better than 3 to 1 (140 to 44, ignoring intentional
walks). He was done in by the 33 homers he allowed in 192 innings. He’s an
extreme flyball pitcher, but in 2010 and 2011, he allowed 35 homers in 295
innings. Amazingly, his xFIP – my favorite “ERA estimator” – was better in 2012 (4.62) than it was in
2011 (4.68) and 2010 (4.79).

The consistency of his xFIP is telling – Chen has basically
been the same pitcher three years running, only his ERA has jumped all over the
map based on how far the fly balls were carrying. That’s basically who he is –
a starter with an ERA in the mid-4s. He fits into the #5 slot in a rotation
fine.

Luis Mendoza was probably the most pleasant surprise on the
entire roster this season – particularly after he learned to throw the cutter
around the end of June. He finished with a 4.23 ERA despite an unimpressive
strikeout-to-walk ratio of 1.86. However, after implementing the cutter
beginning with his start on June 29th, Mendoza had a 3.82 ERA, averaged over
six innings a start, and had a K/BB ratio of 2.64. His sinker makes him a
strong groundball pitcher as well. I’m perfectly happy slotting him in as the
#4 starter.

Jake Odorizzi is the Royals’ most major-league-ready
pitching prospect, and there’s a case to be made that he should be in the
rotation to start the season. But I would be perfectly happy if he went back to
Omaha to open 2013. While he had a fine 2.93 for the Storm Chasers this season,
in 107 innings he struck out 88 and walked 40, a borderline ratio even at the
Triple-A level, and a sign that he still has some things to work on.

Remember, last year in his first crack at Double-A, his
strikeout rate dropped significantly – he K’d 11.8 batters per 9 innings in
Wilmington before his promotion, but just 7.1 per 9 at Northwest Arkansas. So
the Royals started him in Double-A again this year, and he dominated in seven
starts (11.1 Ks per 9) before his promotion to Omaha, where his K rate dropped
to 7.4 per 9. If history is any guide, Odorizzi could use a second audition in
Triple-A to prove that he can miss bats there, and be ready for a permanent
place in the Royals’ rotation by June or July. At the very least, he makes for
a great #6 starter, the first understudy in the event that anyone in the
projected rotation gets hurt during spring training. But the Royals should plan
to break camp in 2013 with five starters better than Odorizzi.

Will Smith is a left-handed finesse pitcher who won’t kill
you if you need him to fill in for two or three starts, but at least at this
point in his development, he’s not a major-league starter. As a #7 starter, you
could do a lot worse; as a #5 starter, you could do a lot better.

So right now, this is how the Royals’ rotation sets up:

#4: Luis Mendoza

#5: Bruce Chen

#6: Jake Odorizzi

#7: Will Smith

You may have noticed that there’s something missing at the
top.

I have already analyzed Jeremy Guthrie’s performance
extensively, so I’ll sum up here by saying that he projects as a very solid #3
starter, maybe with #2 upside. He certainly pitched like a #2 starter for the
Royals this year, but you can’t completely ignore his performance with
Colorado, he turns 34 in April…let’s just call him a #3 starter for
simplicity’s sake.

I’ve been on the record as saying the Royals should offer
him 2 years, $15 million; Sam Mellinger has suggested 2 and 18. Whatever.
Somewhere in that range seems like something both sides can agree on; Dutton
strongly suggests that the Royals will try to get something done with Guthrie
in that range. If Guthrie gets a 3/30 offer elsewhere, he’s probably gone, but
the odds of that seem low.

I do agree that the Royals should be aggressive in resolving
Guthrie’s status sooner rather than later – but by “resolving” I mean “make him
a quality offer, and if he says no, move on”, not “give him whatever he wants”.
The Royals can negotiate with him now, whereas it will be a month before they
can talk to other free agents. By the time free agent season opens, the Royals
should already know whether Guthrie is in the fold or not.

But for now, let’s add him to the pile.

#3: Jeremy Guthrie

#4: Luis Mendoza

#5: Bruce Chen

#6: Jake Odorizzi

#7: Will Smith

Let’s stop for a second and ask, yet again, how on Earth can
the Royals bring back Luke Hochevar?

It’s not just the 5.73 ERA in 2012 (the second-worst of any
qualifier, behind only Ricky Romero) or the career 5.39 ERA. About that career
ERA…oh, you guys are going to love this:

WORST CAREER ERA, MLB
HISTORY, MINIMUM 125 STARTS

1. Kyle Davies, 5.59
ERA

2. Luke Hochevar,
5.39 ERA

3. Who the hell
cares? Just look at #1 and #2 again

So yeah…Luke Hochevar. But setting aside for a moment just
how bad he is…if the Royals bring him back, where exactly is the improvement in
the rotation going to come from?

If Hochevar returns, that means there’s only one open spot
in the rotation – unless you move Mendoza or Chen to the bullpen, which seems
to me to be a waste of resources. Mendoza’s too good, and Chen doesn’t have the
skill set to be a lefty specialist (LHB have a higher OPS against Chen than RHB
for his entire career, which is quite unusual).

Whereas if you let Hochevar go, not only do you save $5
million in payroll, but you open up two spots for newcomers. The Royals have
telegraphed that they’re willing to bring in at least one free agent, and are
willing to explore trade possibilities to bring in one more. But if Hochevar
returns, then you’ll wind up with a situation where either Mendoza or Chen –
both of whom are better pitchers than Hochevar – have to move to the bullpen to
accommodate him.

In the grand calculus of whether to bring Hochevar back,
this pales compared to the consequence that bringing back Luke Hochevar means
BRINGING BACK LUKE HOCHEVAR. But it’s just another reason to let him go. I’m an
optimist, and I’m stubborn, so I continue to believe that the Royals will open
their eyes to the harsh light of reality long enough to see what everyone else
sees. But I admit that at this point, it’s a belief based more on faith than on
evidence.

(It’s quite possible that Hochevar’s fate is tied to
Guthrie’s. If Guthrie doesn’t re-sign, then the Royals would be left needing to
fill three holes in their rotation instead of two, in which case they could
easily talk themselves into sticking with the devil they know for one of those
spots. All the more reason to get a deal done with Guthrie.)

Either way, the Royals need two pitchers to fill the #1 and
#2 spots in their rotation. They won’t necessarily be “#1” and “#2” starters –
the only #1 starter on the free agent market is Zack Greinke. But they need to
be at least #3-plus, guys the caliber of Guthrie or better. The Royals can go
to war next year with a #2, #3, #3, #4, #5 rotation and still hope to win. They
just can’t go to war with what they had this year, with their two potential #2
starters both blowing out their elbows, and being left with a #4, #5, and a
parade of #6s and #7s.

So if we are agreed that the Royals need to acquire two quality
starting pitchers between now and February, let’s explore some options.

The two main categories to look at are free agent pitchers
and trade candidates, but today I want to look at a third, largely-overlooked
category, because I think there’s at least one gem there to be had there.

Both types of pitching acquisitions come with a downside. In
the case of free agent pitchers, to sign the best ones, you almost always have
to give them too many years, or too much money, or both – while they may
improve your team in the short term, you’re going to feel some heartburn by the
end of the contract.

In the case of going the trade route, while you might get a
young pitcher who is still improving, and while you might not have to pay him
nearly as much money, it’s going to cost you prospects – and for a truly impact
pitcher, it’s going to cost you a LOT of prospects. Yes, the Nationals got Gio
Gonzalez and he’s fantastic, and they’ve signed him for at least four more
years. But they gave up Tom Milone and Derek Norris and A.J. Cole and Brad
Peacock. Yeah, the Reds got Mat Latos – but did you see what Yasmani Grandal
did in San Diego as a rookie?

But what if I told you that the Royals could acquire an
established, quality starting pitcher, without surrendering any top prospects,
and who would only require a one-year contract commitment? You’d be interested,
wouldn’t you?

They can. It just requires them to be creative.

There are a number of starting pitchers around baseball
whose current teams have club options for 2013. Bob Dutton mentions some of
them in his column: Dan Haren, Tim Hudson, Jake Peavy, Ervin Santana, and James
Shields. Hudson’s contract will probably be picked up by Atlanta; Shields (who
actually has options for two more years) will certainly get picked up by Tampa
Bay, at least until they trade him.

The White Sox have already indicated that they will not pick
up Jake Peavy’s option. This, even though Peavy was healthy in 2012 for the
first time in four years and had a terrific season: 219 innings, a 3.37 ERA in
a hitters’ park, 194 Ks and just 48 walks. His option is for $22 million, which
gives you pause, but consider that the White Sox owe him a $4 million buyout if
they don’t pick up his option. So the
marginal cost to them is $18 million. If it were me, with the White Sox’s
payroll, I’d pay the extra $18 million to keep Peavy for one year. The White
Sox seem to think they can decline the option and sign Peavy to a longer-term
deal. Even if they couldn’t, they’re not about to trade Peavy to an in-division
rival. So he’s out.

But then look over in Anaheim, where the Angels have Dan
Haren and Ervin Santana. The Angels have options on both players for 2013.
Santana has an option for $13 million (with a $1 million buyout) and Haren has
an option for $15.5 million (with a $3.5 million buyout). Take out the buyouts,
which the Angels have to pay either way, and they can keep either player on
essentially a 1-year, $12 million contract.

Now, in Santana’s case that’s understandable. He did, after
all, have a 5.16 ERA this year, and led the AL with 39 homers allowed. However,
Santana was much better in the second half after some mechanical changes to fix
his slider. From July 30th until his next-to-last start of the season, he had a
3.08 ERA in 10 starts, with 42 hits and 16 walks allowed in 64 innings. (He did
get hammered in his last start.)

Selective endpoints can make even Luke Hochevar look good,
but in the context of his career, 2012 is the anomaly for Santana – he had a
3.38 ERA in 2011, a 3.92 ERA in 2010, and threw over 220 innings each year.
He’s definitely on my list of second-tier free agents who would be good gambles
in the $5-8 million range. Only having to make a one-year commitment would be
tempting, but at $12 million, you might be better off waiting until he’s a free
agent and offering him $16 million for two years instead.

But then there’s Dan Haren. The same Dan Haren who has a
3.66 career ERA, including a 3.33 ERA from 2007 to 2011. The same Dan Haren who
led the AL in strikeout-to-walk ratio (6.00) just last year, and led the NL in
both 2008 and 2009. The same Dan Haren who made at least 33 starts and threw at
least 216 innings every year from
2005 to 2011.

You’ll notice the timeframes I mentioned in the last
paragraph ended in 2011, because this season, Haren dealt with some back issues
that affected both his ability and his availability. But even this year, even
dealing with back problems, Haren made 30 starts, had a 4.33 ERA, and in 177
innings, struck out 142 batters against 35 walks (a ratio of better than
4-to-1). In 2011, he struck out 20% of the batters he faced; this year that
ratio dropped all the way to 19%.

His ERA jumped because he was more hittable (his BABIP jumped
from .276 to .306) and because more flyballs left the yard (12.8%, vs. 7.5%
last year). There’s a lot of variability in both of those stats, so he’s likely
to improve in both regards next year. While the back problems can be worrisome,
I’m much more worried about them with
hitters – they can sap you of your power permanently, as they did with Don
Mattingly and, to a lesser extent, Mike Sweeney – than with pitchers. Randy
Johnson won his first Cy Young Award in 1995, then missed half of the 1996 season
with back problems – and then came back in 1997 at full strength, finishing 2nd
in the Cy Young vote.

And for what it’s worth, Haren pitched much better after a
brief DL stint around the All-Star Break – he made 13 starts after he returned,
with a 3.58 ERA, and in 73 innings
he allowed just 68 hits and 14 walks. In his last seven starts, he walked 5
batters in 42 innings, and struck out 34.

There is some risk here – notably, the Angels play in a very
strong pitchers’ park, which means he might be worse than he looks. On the
other hand, he actually pitched better on the road (3.95 ERA) than at home
(4.68 ERA) this year.

To me, this is a no-brainer. If Dan Haren goes on the free
agent market, he’s getting a three-year deal as a bare minimum. To get him on a
one-year, $12 million deal is a steal – and yet, that seems to be in play. The
Angels are planning to decline his option and get nothing in return – if the
Royals offer them even a modest package of talent, and only ask that the Angels
pick up the buyout portion of his contract, why wouldn’t they say yes? They’re
getting something instead of nothing.

The more I analyze the trades that teams make, the more I’ve
come to the conclusion that the most important step in making good trades is to
find the right teams to trade with. There are always teams that, for whatever
reason, don’t know what they are doing at the moment – their front office is
either incompetent or dysfunctional. Consider how the Royals were able to turn
Jonathan Sanchez into Jeremy Guthrie – the Rockies don’t seem to have a clue
what they’re doing, and announced a restructuring of their front office during
the season that hasn’t clarified anything.

Once upon a time, the Red Sox had the most competent front
office in the game. By the time the lights went down on last season, the knives
had come out, owners were backstabbing managers, GMs were fleeing the scene,
players were being outed for eating fried chicken in the clubhouse…you think
it’s a coincidence that the Sox got absolutely fleeced by the A’s (Bailey for
Reddick+) and Astros (Lowrie for Melancon)?

It brings to mind the classic opening line to the movie
“Rounders”: “Listen, here’s the thing. If
you can’t spot the sucker in the first half hour at the table, then YOU are the
sucker.” (I think Allard Baird is still trying to spot the sucker,
actually.)

If you’re not convinced that the other team in a trade
negotiation doesn’t know what they’re doing, you have to at least consider the
possibility that YOU don’t know what you’re doing.

If this were the Tampa Bay Rays talking about declining Dan
Haren’s option, I’d be very concerned that they know something the rest of us
don’t. But it’s not the Rays; it’s the Angels, who have a very competent GM in Jerry
DiPoto, but also seem to be going through a power struggle at the moment
between DiPoto and manager Mike Scioscia, with an impatient owner (Arte Moreno)
who wants to know why all the millions he spent on Albert Pujols and C.J.
Wilson didn’t lead to a playoff spot this year. So the fact that the Angels seem
prepared to decline what should be a gimme option for Dan Haren doesn’t worry
me all that much.

Instead, it strikes me as a golden opportunity for the
Royals to buy low, acquiring a true #2 starter while only having to make a
one-year commitment, and giving up precious little talent to do so. The Angels
were done in this year by a very leaky bullpen – their bullpen finished 12th in
the AL in ERA, despite pitching in a very good pitchers’ park. So maybe offer
them, I dunno, Louis Coleman? In 111 career innings, Coleman has 129 strikeouts
and a 3.25 ERA, and he’d be under club control for five years. If the Angels
are letting Haren go anyway, why not get a pitcher who could work in the
seventh inning for you for the next half-decade? And from the Royals’
perspective, would they really miss Coleman at all?

Those of you who have listened to me on 810 WHB this season
have probably already heard me make the case for Dan Haren – a few weeks ago I
even “predicted” that Haren would be the Royals’ Opening Day starter next year
when Soren Petro asked me to give him a name. It wasn’t a forecast so much as a
wishcast, but there’s no reason why it can’t happen. All it requires is some
out-of-the-box thinking.

This is the move Dayton Moore needs to make, and needs to
make now. Jeremy Guthrie can wait. Trading three Top Ten prospects for James
Shields or Josh Johnson can wait. You can’t even talk to free agent pitchers
until November. But right now, you can add a premium starting pitcher to your
2013 rotation, and neither break your payroll nor dip into your farm system. Do
it now, Dayton. Before some other GM does.

21 comments:

Is there a precedence for a trade like this? This also assumes that the Angels aren't planning on releasing him and then resigning him to a cheaper contract, though it does seem unlikely that you could get Harden back for cheaper after already spending $3.5 million to buy him out.

Who we could trade is also interesting. The Angels would essentially be getting prospects for nothing. They would even be saved the buyout money they would have spent. If we offered Coleman, as you suggested, with a mid tier position player then I don't see why they wouldn't want to make this trade. Harden doesn't have a no trade clause or anything, does he?

I think the Royals blew it on Guthrie. When they acquired him, he was probably looking at a minor league contract next year and the Royals had what he desparately needed - starts. They gave him the starts for nothing. They should have used the leverage to negotiate something like a $5 Million club option for next year for or for the next two years. Now, they will either lose him or have to overpay to keep him.

Rany, we know you mean well, but you're not helping. You know the Royals will do the opposite of whatever you suggest. Please, post some stupid suggestions for a change so the Royals can go in the other direction! Suggest a lifetime contract for Frenchy. Promote the virtues of small-ball. We'll all back you up!

Rany, we know you mean well, but you're not helping. You know the Royals will do the opposite of whatever you suggest. Please, post some stupid suggestions for a change so the Royals can go in the other direction! Suggest a lifetime contract for Frenchy. Promote the virtues of small-ball. We'll all back you up!

I don't see how it makes sense to trade low on Hosmer, Moustakas, Cain or anyone else who did not have a good year in 2012. I suppose it is always possible that you could steal an ascending player or that another team would over value one of our guys, but much more likely, our guys will not have high trade value and will have greater trade value next year.

Myers is in a diffrent category. He may be at all time high trade value and, if the Royals can get a top flight pitcher under control for several years, they probably should reluctantly pull the triggger. Reluctantly because Myers probably will be very good and any pticher could breakdown tomorrow.

Truthfully, I would rather keep Myers and other young studs and seek to find pitchers like Guthrie, i.e., undervalued pitchers available on the cheap through trade or free agency. I'm not certain top line pitchers are worth as much as conventional wisdom suggests. The Angels were 7and 6 in games started by Greinke. I konw small sample size. but the bottom line is that one of the best pitchers in baseball did not help the Angels.

I can't believe Guthrie is not already signed. He has said he wants to be here. And I agree with you it would be foolish to over pay, but this is another disjointed move by the front office.

If things came down just as you said, which I know they won't, but if they did would there be enough money left to take a flyer on BJ Upton? If they resigned Guthrie and got Haren, another bat wouldn't hurt. If they could improve at an outfield position or at second base I think they should try. All indications are that they won't but when have they ever told the truth to the media?

If they could get Sanchez or one of the top free agent pitchers, I think they should, but to get another retread just to have a body would be a waste. If they had Haren, Guthrie, Mendoza and Chen, I would be willing to give the last spot to one of Odorizzi, Ventura, Montgomery or Crow. I agree on Odorizzi that another couple of months wouldn't hurt, but sometimes you just have to throw them out there and see what they can do. Is it possible that they waited to long on Montgomery and destroyed his psyche such that he has regressed? An opportunity and some success could have done a lot of good for him. We will never know, but something to think about. As the devil's advocate, if his psyche couldn't handle what he has gone through, there is no reason to think he would have held up facing big league hitters. Food for thought.

I am fairly optimistic for next year. Not nearly as optimistic as I would have been though if Yost had been fired and Francona was in KC and not in Cleveland.

I agree with your basic assumptions regarding Chen, Mendoza, and Smith. Handled correctly, Odorizzi can be our #1 starter. That does mean not rushing him along. Your growth curve through the levels is worth paying attention to. He may not be ready for the Bigs until next August. And even then not just thrown to the wolves against the top hitting lineups immediately. I see getting Guthrie signed for 2 yrs as the first priority. Then let Hoch go. Enough is enough. After that, if Haren can be had for a reliever other that Holland or Crowe, I’d make that deal. But only if Haren’s agent would up front commit to maybe a 4 yr/50M deal. Zack might even sniff at that offer. We need to lock up our top starters, including Jake O, long term to establish a solid foundation. A one year Haren deal won’t do. Shooting in the dark over the long run gets you nowhere. We got lucky with Guthrie, but you can’t count on that luck holding consistently. Duffy and Paulino will likely be strong 3-4 guys next year. I would package Soria and Cain in the right deal. We’ve got Dyson, and Starling is on the horizon. Only Alex, BB, Myers, Salvy & Escobar are unavailable. Due to his shifty agent, I’d reluctantly trade Hoz, but his value is down due to his underperforming. I’m OK with keeping Frenchy on the bench. Few top teams are interested in prospects. And we’ve got enough of them. Your sucker analogy is highly accurate. But, were I Mr. Moore, I’d give Mr. Wren a call and see if we could help each other out. The Braves could use a 3B. We’ve got a good young power hitting one we probably can’t afford. They are overloaded with promising young starters. I’m listening…

According to MLB Trade Rumors, Anibal Sanchez and Kyle Lohse are the Royals top targets in free agency. I'm not so intrigued by Lohse, but Sanchez does make me happy. Lohse would definitely be an upgrade though.

I truly love Rany's stuff. The Royals have become my "next great thing" to follow in baseball, and I'm jazzed about their future.

Four years ago my "next great thing" was the Rangers, but Nolan Ryan has done his best to make make me want to root against that club. (In fact, check out my blog post yesterday on how he's brought all sort of bsd baseball juju raining down on his team and incurred the wrath of the baseball gods: http://mcantil.com/nolan-ryan-runs-afoul-of-the-baseball-gods/)

But that said, I really think two things: One, Greinke, regardless of the fact that Moore will not have all that much money to give him, will be a Royal next year. And two Mendoza and one of the kids will turn out to be a 12-14 game winners. Yes, the Royals still need a horse to anchor the rotation (even with Greinke). But they're a lot closer to a divisional title, especially in that division, than anyone seems to realize.

I suggested something on a Red Sox board about a deal that might help both them and the Royals get some of what they need, especially if they do want to get Greinke back or sign some other good FA pitcher.

Frenchy is a sunk cost, and Butler is expendable with Myers ready to play in the majors. But if K.C. could get the Red Sox, who need a first baseman and have lots of cash to pay for one, to take both of them, you've got another $23 million to spend on pitching.